User talk:Volunteer Marek: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:34, 19 July 2012

		The Purple Heart Barnstar
		Za całokształt. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus\| talk to me} 20:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your HighBeam account is ready!

Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know:

Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
- Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
- If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi^{t | c} 21:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re

With regard to this, I would like to assure that I am not taking any sides here. Speaking about Malick, he does not do any "anti-Russian" edits, not even remotely, at least from the point of view of someone who really knows these subjects. He supported completely wrong (I believe) arguments by Paul on AE. He did it in a highly partisan fashion, by bringing irrelevant issues to discussion, commenting in my section, and reverting my edits in my section. He recently proposed me to contact with him by email, and it's great that I politely refused his offer. Yes, indeed I tried to help him (and you) by providing some reasonable advice. But I am not taking and will not take any sides. Good luck, My very best wishes (talk) 13:02, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Debt-based monetary system

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Debt-based monetary system, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! KTC (talk) 00:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks.VolunteerMarek 00:55, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AK and Red Army

Hi, VM.
Can you have a look at this photo? Don't you find strange that the Red Army solders and Armija Krajova solders are marching together? It seems to me that AK was more an opponent of the Red Army then an ally. It seems to me that the caption is wrong, and some other Polish military are shown on the picture. Could you please either chack that by yourself or ask someone who knows Polish history better?--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "AK was more an opponent of the Red Army then an ally" is true but it is also a generalization. In particular, AK and the Red Army did cooperate/coordinate in numerous instances and in particular in the liberation of/attack on Wilno, which is where this photo comes from. See Operation_Ostra_Brama#Fights_in_cooperation_with_the_Red_Army (that article could most certainly use citations but it gets it essentially correct). Now, after the fighting was over the Soviets did arrest the Polish officers but that wasn't until the 17th or so. This photo says it's from the 12th so at that point AK and Soviet soldiers happily patrolling together makes some sense (another potential issue is that the relations between individual soldiers of the two formations could be quite different from "official" attitudes at the higher levels).VolunteerMarek 01:20, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, any particular issue which made you notice it? VolunteerMarek 01:29, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good. I didn't know about any cooperation between AK and the Soviets. I thought they never cooperated, and the caption is a mistake. Thank you for explanation.

No particular issues. I noticed this caption and found it to contradict to what I know about the AK history. However, if you are sure that there was some cooperation I have no reason not to believe you.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:37, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS. BTW, what you say is a very interesting and unusual. Surprisingly the WP article about AK contains no such information. Maybe, we need to update the Armija Krajova article, and to add this photo there?--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look through the AK article again, but basically right after Operation Tempest (which Operation Ostra Brama was a part of) (August-September 1944) is when the relations more or less went from "suspicious but cooperative" to essentially hostile, mostly due to mass arrests of AK (higher) officers and the enforced conscription of lower officers and regular AK soldiers into Berling's Army or the Second Army (Poland) by the Soviets (on occasion AK soldiers joined the Soviet controlled armies "voluntarily" - it's how me granddad wound up fighting for/near Berlin).

The photo would be useful in the Operation Ostra Brama article, though NPOV would require that the caption explains that this was pre-arrest of Polish officers.

Also, one thing to keep in mind that before August-September 1944 the relations between Soviet partisans and AK varied widely by region. They were worst in present day Lithuania and northern Belarus, mixed but generally ok in Ukraine (where Poles were more fearful of UPA and had a small presence anyway).

I also see someone added some POV stuff to the AK article on the relations with the Soviets.VolunteerMarek 01:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, for other examples of Soviet-AK cooperation see my old article Battle of Porytowe Wzgórze as well as Battle of Osuchy. The 27th Volhynian AK division was also involved in several actions in cooperation with the Red Army, though that article's a bit sparse on that.VolunteerMarek 02:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. The only thing I can add to that is the following. If the photo we discuss is relevant to the Eastern Front article, it seems to be even more relevant to the article about AK. In this situation I speak on behalf of an ordinary reader (I have no specific knowledge in this area, so I can be considered as an ordinary reader), and, being an ordinary reader, I went from the Eastern Front article to the AK article, and I didn't find this photo there. As a result, my first hypothesis was that there was a mistake, and that in actuality the Polish military on the photo were some pro-Soviet Polish troops. Had I found this photo on the AK page, no such questions would appear.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:00, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Business and Economics Barnstar

I'ld like to present to you this long overdue award:

		The Business and Economics Barnstar
		For your tireless efforts to improve the quality of banking articles on Wikipedia. LK (talk) 04:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Much appreciated. VolunteerMarek 23:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting

See http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal:Journal_%28A_peer-review_journal_to_allow/encourage_academics_to_write_Wikipedia_articles --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:41, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gdańsk

Hi, I have mentioned your revert at User talk:Dohn joe, you may wish to comment. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:08, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for participating in my RFA! I appreciate your support. Zagalejo^^^ 06:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maus GA

HI! Thanks for the encouraging words. I intend to put Maus up for FA review soon, so if you have any input before I do, it would be greatly appreciated. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 07:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shame on you!

Talking sense, especially on an Arbcom page, is one of the Things For Which Wikipedia Is Not. Don't do it again. pablo 09:49, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That was an impressive rant. And it made a lot of sense. I was wondering briefly why I was left off the list, then I realised you must have written it before seeing that I had posted. Given that I posted there a second time, I think I should now be on that list... Carcharoth (talk) 05:12, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Holy cow that was a great rant. Hats off to you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:20, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

request for comment

i would like you to comment on this thread on my talk page please. [1]-- altetendekrabbe 12:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Debt-based monetary system

Based on the recent additions to the article, I'ld like to suggest a withdrawal of the AfD nomination for Debt-based monetary system. The current version appears to me to be POV free and notable. rgds, LK (talk) 08:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm just not seeing enough in that source to support the existence of this article. The text currently in it could be included in History of money, except it's mostly already there and in terms of monetary theories it's a bit fring-y, so undue needs to be observed. And gawd, that History of money article is a mess. I can't tell if it's due to vandalism or just plain ol' atrocious writing.VolunteerMarek 13:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also waiting for a response from Carrite to see if he's got any other sources.VolunteerMarek 13:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	you did a great job exposing the tag-teamers. wikipedia needs more excellent editors like you. altetendekrabbe 02:29, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to several sited regarding expulsion of Germans during/after WWII

Marek, Why did you revert my addition to the link http://forgottenvoices.net/? I believe this newly published book (and website) add depth and breadth to the articles. Please let me know your specific concerns and I will be more than happy to address them. Should I perhaps add a direct link to the book (using ISBN number?) Much appreciated! PagehG (talk) 04:14, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the links you are adding are just to the promotional site for the book. There are a lot of sources on this topic and if we were to include all the books that have been published on it in the "External links" section it would be really long. I looked at the website and the book looks like a good source, but that's how it should be treated - as a source. So if there's information in the book which you think should be added to the article then that's fine, but just putting in a link to the book is essentially promotional, which, since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, is not what Wikipedia is about.VolunteerMarek 04:19, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Forgotten voices" link should be removed from the article

From the review: "in general the ethnic Germans had become fully integrated and loyal citizens of the areas from which they were expelled". The only reviewer (emeritus) lacks elementary knowledge. Xx236 (talk) 11:14, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

disruptive behavior

please note the extremely disruptive and destructive behavior of user shrike on the edit warring-noticeboard [2], and on the dhimmitude-page [3]. he is blatantly trying to game the system by making disruptive edits so that he is reverted. he is making false accusations against me on the edit warring-noticeboard by listing up unrelated diffs. he became disruptive when he failed to get me banned, and when it became clear that he has been misrepresenting the sources.-- altetendekrabbe 10:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A useless attempt: Volunteer Marek is only engaged if he finds me involved to oppose, otherwise he won't give a damn about your business. Estlandia (Miacek) (dialogue) 11:13, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't been following along have you? Seriously, read talk pages before you comment, revert or edit.VolunteerMarek 11:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

July 2012

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for eggreious personal attack. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk about an abusive "Respect mah authority block!" done to cover your own incompetence [4].VolunteerMarek 12:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quite the contrary Marek, indeed. I was quite open with my error, and cover nothing. Odd your behaviour today, as until about 37 seconds ago I held you in greatest respect. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Admin abuse of other editors combined with great stupidity, all in a context of extensive bullying is not a context in which one should mince words. You blocked me because I criticized (strongly) your actions. Not even gonna mention how much respect I've got for you.VolunteerMarek 12:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No Marek, I encourage critique ... unfortunately, you laced yours with a direct personal attack. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If your skin is so thin then you got no business taking controversial (and yes, um... wrongful) admin actions.VolunteerMarek 13:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have not been involved in any controversial admin actions yet today (I made a small error, since corrected and apologized for), but nothing controversial yet. Since you ask, my skin is fantasticly thick by the way - my wife loves it, and it does a good job keeping all the requisite bodily fluids and parts inside. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:13, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody show Kuru this diff [5].VolunteerMarek 12:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When four editors oppose the edits of a single editor, surely Okham's Razor dictates that the contributions are flawed as opposed to a scheming tag team operation? Ankh.Morpork 13:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is Wikipedia. Anyway, OR is just a rule of thumb, often a very flawed one. I'll take the weight of evidence in regard to past behavior instead.VolunteerMarek 13:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll assume you're not referring to this. Ankh.Morpork 13:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm. VM, it is not the first time your mouth has gotten you into trouble. You know the admin lottery better than most, if you prod them enough times, one of those random dice rolls is going to end up on a critical failure. Now, that particular comment was quite over the top, and I strongly suggest you refactor it (WP:SPADE has been grossly bent here, broken and jumped upon several times...). You should also appeal this block, I do think it is an unfortunate example of admin abuse: a combination of a decision to randomly enforce CIV/NPA (we all know how often this happens - not often enough), and also - what is worse - blocking when the editor is involved in a discussion him/herself. If the blocking admin was offended, s/he should have asked for another admin to review this. To block the editor herself is a very bad example of admin power abuse ("You loudmouth at me? Ahaha, I am an admin - and you are blocked!"). As far as I am concerned, you both failed here, and should be WP:TROUTed. Now, if both of you were to act like responsible adults (please do...), you'd promise to refactor your comment, and BWilkins would unblock you. I am curious to see who if anybody will try to act nice, and who will stand by their hurt pride in "I am holier than thou" mode? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chess

Bc5. VolunteerMarek 12:32, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Just spotted this. Ankh.Morpork 13:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.VolunteerMarek 13:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bf2. VolunteerMarek 13:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rd8. VolunteerMarek 13:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kf8. VolunteerMarek 13:37, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rd7. VolunteerMarek 14:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kf6. VolunteerMarek 14:13, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Error. You are attempting to perform an illegal move. Ankh.Morpork 14:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the base of the king remain on f8 but its top has toppled over onto the f6 square? Ankh.Morpork 14:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Nf6...silly me Ankh.Morpork 14:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, yes, knight.VolunteerMarek 14:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, resign.VolunteerMarek 14:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

U wanna play as white? Ankh.Morpork 14:27, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, unless Double wants a turn.VolunteerMarek 14:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I won't be able to play just yet as I have a cricket game to watch and a belly to fill. But yeah, first move's on you. Ankh.Morpork 14:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can go first. (Can I be White next time?) Double sharp (talk) 15:13, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

England vs. SA? The English are doing good aren't they? Anyway:

Or the English South Africans are doing well. Its nice watching the two best teams battling it out - and the English prevailing. Ankh.Morpork 15:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

e4 VolunteerMarek 14:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bc4 VolunteerMarek 16:32, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 131: / Line 131: @@
 ::::This is Wikipedia. Anyway, OR is just a rule of thumb, often a very flawed one. I'll take the weight of evidence in regard to past behavior instead.[[User:Volunteer Marek|<font color="Orange">Volunteer</font><font color="Blue">Marek</font>]] 13:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 :::::I'll assume you're not referring to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AAltetendekrabbe this]. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User:AnkhMorpork|<b><font color="#990000">Ankh</font></b>]]'''.'''[[User talk:AnkhMorpork|<font color="#000099">Morpork</font>]]'''</small> 13:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
+Hmmmm. VM, it is not the first time your mouth has gotten you into trouble. You know the admin lottery better than most, if you prod them enough times, one of those random dice rolls is going to end up on a critical failure. Now, that particular comment was quite over the top, and I strongly suggest you refactor it ([[WP:SPADE]] has been grossly bent here, broken and jumped upon several times...). You should also appeal this block, I do think it is an unfortunate example of admin abuse: a combination of a decision to randomly enforce CIV/NPA (we all know how often this happens - not often enough), and also - what is worse - blocking when the editor is involved in a discussion him/herself. If the blocking admin was offended, s/he should have asked for another admin to review this. To block the editor herself is a very bad example of admin power abuse ("You loudmouth at me? Ahaha, I am an admin - and you are blocked!"). As far as I am concerned, you both failed here, and should be [[WP:TROUT]]ed. Now, if both of you were to act like responsible adults (please do...), you'd promise to refactor your comment, and BWilkins would unblock you. I am curious to see who if anybody will try to act nice, and who will stand by their hurt pride in "I am holier than thou" mode? --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]&#124;[[User talk:Piotrus|<font style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> reply here</font>]]</sub> 17:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 == Chess ==